At the river
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
Photos of the Week Photos of the Week
 


Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Photography by Genre: Critique and Discussion > Infrared

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1
Llama
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 902
CamelKarma: 941940
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default At the river

at the river
Canon 700D Sigma 18-50 Filter Hoya IR 72
which option is better?
What do you think ? What's wrong?

__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0104 4.jpg (145.9 KB, 87 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0104.jpg (126.8 KB, 88 views)
File Type: jpg comp_IMG_0117 2_filtered.jpg (82.2 KB, 76 views)
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #2
Photocamel Master
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 9,573
CamelKarma: 1457659
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

The monochrome version you don't have to worry about the weird colors. The pink foliage in the color version looks too alien for my taste. The clouds also have a pink cast. If you can, you might try getting the color cast in the clouds and getting the foliage more like green or yellow-green (but not too saturated) for something a bit more earthlike.


The other noticeable fault is the tilted camera. You might be able to get by with a slight tilt in a landscape, but if the image has a large body of water, the tilt leaves the viewer with an unsettling feeling that the water is about to run to the low side of the image.


The last image in the series has a more believable rendition of the foliage and the water is level, but I still have a little quibble with the yellow-red cast of the cloud edges. Nevertheless, I like it better than the other two.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #3
Llama
 
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 872
CamelKarma: 36120
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

I agree with scoundrel.

The second image has to be leveled, otherwise it feels wrong. The color of the leaves I dont mind. However, your white balance is till not corrected properly, as you can see all the left over pink in your clouds. If you correct the WB, the clouds will go white, and the pink in the leaves will also shift. The pink will be much cleaner, and will pop more off the blue sky and white clouds. It will make a nice improvement. Can you see how the pink is a bit muddy? Thats the WB thats causing it.

If you have PS, take the image into ACR. Once in ACR, take the WB tool, click it on the outside of the image, and drag it over the entire image. Let go of the mouse and wait. Itll take a bit for the software to run its calculations. It will WB the entire image that way. It will take everything into account when it does its calculation. If you just click on one part of the image like you do in the regular visual spectrum, it only takes that area you click into account. You can get away with that in the nornal visiaul spectrum, but not IR. You have to WB the entire image. You want the sky to be dark blue, not acqua. So you might have to further tweak hues after the WB is done as well. The clouds need to be white. Well if thats what your going for anyway. Afterall its all make believe in IR, so if you like the way it is, it's correct. For me, I would correct it the way I said above.

The last image is nice. The WB seems a bit better there. If it were me, I like the blue-yellow combination for IR. I would make the sky a deep blue, and turn the leaves yellow. Pink would work too. You have the trifecta here of, the sky, clouds and water which makes IR really sing. So here, I would really play up the refelctions in the water a lot. Contrast and clarity as much as I could stand, and a lot of vibrance.
__________________
Rob

Nikon D800, D5500 IR 590nm, D50
nu2scene is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #4
F1 Camel
 
WesternGuy's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,746
CamelKarma: 6717294
Editing OK?: No
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

I also agree with Scoundrel to some extent. I like the first image, but again, you do have to level the water. In these types of images, the water acts like a horizon and thus has to be level. I am not a fan of the coloured foliage in the 2nd and 3rd images, but that is just me.



Perhaps you could share with us how you processed these images. We might be able to give you some pointers on rendering different colours in your image and how to formulate a decent white balance.



WesternGuy
__________________
“The real question is not what you look at but what you see.” Henry David Thoreau

My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/westernguy/
WesternGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #5
Llama
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 902
CamelKarma: 941940
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Thumbs up Re: At the river

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
The monochrome version you don't have to worry about the weird colors. The pink foliage in the color version looks too alien for my taste. The clouds also have a pink cast. If you can, you might try getting the color cast in the clouds and getting the foliage more like green or yellow-green (but not too saturated) for something a bit more earthlike.


The other noticeable fault is the tilted camera. You might be able to get by with a slight tilt in a landscape, but if the image has a large body of water, the tilt leaves the viewer with an unsettling feeling that the water is about to run to the low side of the image.


The last image in the series has a more believable rendition of the foliage and the water is level, but I still have a little quibble with the yellow-red cast of the cloud edges. Nevertheless, I like it better than the other two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nu2scene View Post
I agree with scoundrel.

The second image has to be leveled, otherwise it feels wrong. The color of the leaves I dont mind. However, your white balance is till not corrected properly, as you can see all the left over pink in your clouds. If you correct the WB, the clouds will go white, and the pink in the leaves will also shift. The pink will be much cleaner, and will pop more off the blue sky and white clouds. It will make a nice improvement. Can you see how the pink is a bit muddy? Thats the WB thats causing it.

If you have PS, take the image into ACR. Once in ACR, take the WB tool, click it on the outside of the image, and drag it over the entire image. Let go of the mouse and wait. Itll take a bit for the software to run its calculations. It will WB the entire image that way. It will take everything into account when it does its calculation. If you just click on one part of the image like you do in the regular visual spectrum, it only takes that area you click into account. You can get away with that in the nornal visiaul spectrum, but not IR. You have to WB the entire image. You want the sky to be dark blue, not acqua. So you might have to further tweak hues after the WB is done as well. The clouds need to be white. Well if thats what your going for anyway. Afterall its all make believe in IR, so if you like the way it is, it's correct. For me, I would correct it the way I said above.

The last image is nice. The WB seems a bit better there. If it were me, I like the blue-yellow combination for IR. I would make the sky a deep blue, and turn the leaves yellow. Pink would work too. You have the trifecta here of, the sky, clouds and water which makes IR really sing. So here, I would really play up the refelctions in the water a lot. Contrast and clarity as much as I could stand, and a lot of vibrance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternGuy View Post
I also agree with Scoundrel to some extent. I like the first image, but again, you do have to level the water. In these types of images, the water acts like a horizon and thus has to be level. I am not a fan of the coloured foliage in the 2nd and 3rd images, but that is just me.



Perhaps you could share with us how you processed these images. We might be able to give you some pointers on rendering different colours in your image and how to formulate a decent white balance.



WesternGuy
Thanks to everybody

maybe I'm wrong about the white balance ,

explain -how you set the white balance,foto RAW? I tried AUTO, in photoshop use DNG profil
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #6
Llama
 
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 872
CamelKarma: 36120
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

There are a few ways to set the WB. Some people use the DNG profile and like the results. I did not like what it was doing. I didn't spend a lot of time fine tuning it, maybe if I did fine tune it better I might get better results. But I gave up on the DNG profile.

The problem is, most software can not WB IR files. They can't add enough blue to remove all the red. If you use the software that came with your camera, you might be able to WB better. I use the Nikon software. I think Canon's software will WB with enough blue to balance out the red as well.

I take my RAW file, and open it in the nikon software, and do a WB. If you can WB on the whole image, and not just a small area, it works better. I then save the file as a tiff after the WB. I close the nikon software, and open the tiff in ACR. In ACR, I WB again.

The WB is very important in IR. So you kind of have to get that right, before you do anything else. It will effect the final result. So if you don't like how the file looks after you WB in ACR, do it again. It will look different every time you WB. But don't do any editing until you're happy with WB. The WB kind of locks things in place. It will effect your colors, and also to some extent your exposure.

So the final upshot is, you might have to WB twice or maybe more in multiple different software programs. Some people like the results they get with the DNG profile and one software program. For me, I don't like the results.
__________________
Rob

Nikon D800, D5500 IR 590nm, D50
nu2scene is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #7
Llama
 
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 872
CamelKarma: 36120
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

Oh I just had idea. See what you think.

If you want, maybe upload the raw file of one of your images. Give us permission to process the file. Then you'll be able to see how other people process the file. Everyone will have a different version, and they can also tell us what their workflow is.

I'll bet we will all learn something about the various ways to process, and the final results that you can get.

It's an idea anyway, something to think about.
__________________
Rob

Nikon D800, D5500 IR 590nm, D50
nu2scene is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #8
Llama
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 902
CamelKarma: 941940
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

Hi Rob,
I read that in infrared it is important to reduce the temperature in the photo to 1800, so you need DNG profile. How important it is?
Super Idea,Thanks Rob, but I cannot upload CR2 files to the forum ,exclusively JEPG I can send E mail only
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #9
F1 Camel
 
WesternGuy's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,746
CamelKarma: 6717294
Editing OK?: No
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: At the river

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg2010 View Post
Hi Rob,
I read that in infrared it is important to reduce the temperature in the photo to 1800, so you need DNG profile. How important it is?
Super Idea,Thanks Rob, but I cannot upload CR2 files to the forum ,exclusively JEPG I can send E mail only
Is it not possible to post a CR2 to a gallery image and give read only access to it for those who wanted to try their hand at post-processing it?

If this is not possible, then perhaps posting a jpeg that folks could download and process might help. Convert the unprocessed raw file to a jpeg maybe half the size and post that for others to process. Just a couple of suggestions.


WesternGuy
__________________
“The real question is not what you look at but what you see.” Henry David Thoreau

My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/westernguy/
WesternGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #10
Llama
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 902
CamelKarma: 941940
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Thumbs up Re: At the river

Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternGuy View Post
Is it not possible to post a CR2 to a gallery image and give read only access to it for those who wanted to try their hand at post-processing it?

If this is not possible, then perhaps posting a jpeg that folks could download and process might help. Convert the unprocessed raw file to a jpeg maybe half the size and post that for others to process. Just a couple of suggestions.


WesternGuy
Hi WesternGuy

I would be very grateful for your help


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0117123.jpg (79.1 KB, 49 views)
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Photography by Genre: Critique and Discussion > Infrared »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes